Toward a concept of pluralistic, inter-relational semiosis

Sign Systems Studies 35 (1-2):9-68 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Brief consideration of (1) Peirce’s ‘logic of vagueness’, (2) his categories, and (3) the concepts of overdetermination and underdetermination, vagueness and generality, and inconsistency and incompleteness, along with (4) the abrogation of classical Aristotelian principles of logic, bear out the complexity of all relatively rich sign systems. Given this complexity, there is semiotic indeterminacy, which suggests sign limitations, and at the same time it promises semiotic freedom, giving rise to sign proliferation the yield of which is pluralistic, inter-relational semiosis. This proliferation of signs owes its perpetual flowing change in time to the inapplicability of classical logical principles, namely Non-Contradiction and Excluded-Middle, with respect to elements of vagueness and generality in all signs. Hempel’s ‘Inductivity Paradox’ and Goodman’s ‘New Riddle of Induction’ bear out the limitation and freedom of sign making and sign taking. A concrete cultural example, the Spaniards’ world including the Virgin of Guadalupe and the Aztecs world including their Goddess, Tonantzín, are given a Hempel-Goodman interpretation to reveal the ambiguous, vague, and complex nature of intercultural sign systems, further suggesting pluralism. In fact, when taking the ‘limitativetheorems’ of Gödel, Turing, and Chaitin into account, pluralism becomes undeniable, in view of the inconsistency-incompleteness of complex systems. A model for embracing and coping with pluralism suggests itself in the form of contextualized novelty seeking relativism. This form of pluralism takes overdetermination, largely characteristic of Peirce’s Firstness, and underdetermination largely characteristic of Peirce’s Thirdness, into its embrace to reveal a global context capable of elucidating local contexts the collection of which is considerably less than that global view. The entirety of this global context is impossible to encompass, given our inevitable finitude and fallibilism. Yet, we usually manage to cope with processual pluralism, within the play of semiosis.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Umberto Eco's semiotic threshold.Winfried Nöth - 2000 - Sign Systems Studies 28:49-60.
Text semiotics.Dinda L. Gorlée - 2000 - Sign Systems Studies 28:134-156.
An introduction to phytosemiotics.Kalevi Kull - 2000 - Sign Systems Studies 28:326-350.
Resemblance.Floyd Merrell - 2010 - Sign Systems Studies 38 (1/4):91-128.
From materiality to system.Louis Armand - 2006 - Sign Systems Studies 34 (1):105-118.
The circular semiosis of Giorgio Prodi.Felice Cimatti - 2000 - Sign Systems Studies 28:351-378.
Intrasemiotics and cybersemiotics.Søren Brier - 2002 - Sign Systems Studies 30 (1):113-127.
From Semiotics to Semioethics.John Deely - 2004 - Semiotics 36 (2):242-261.
Teleology and Semiosis: Commentary on T. L. Short's Peirce's Theory of Signs.James Liszka - 2007 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (4):636-644.
Atomistic versus holistic semiotics.Mihhail Lotman - 2002 - Sign Systems Studies 30 (2):513-526.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-04-04

Downloads
56 (#286,778)

6 months
19 (#137,170)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Biosemiotics: To know, what life knows.Kalevi Kull - 2009 - Cybernetics and Human Knowing 16 (3/4):81-88.
C. S. Peirce and Intersemiotic Translation.Joao Queiroz & Daniella Aguiar - 2015 - In Peter Pericles Trifonas (ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 201-215.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references